The UK has been talking for years about adopting a genuinely joined-up housing strategy, one that recognises how interdependent the owner-occupied, social and private rented sectors really are. Yet the latest Budget once again shows how easily policy becomes fragmented. While many headlines focused on the Chancellor’s decision not to apply National Insurance to rental income, something many landlords feared, the more salient story is one of partial measures that fail to connect with the wider pressures facing the housing system.

On the surface, landlords may have breathed a sigh of relief that National Insurance was left untouched. But the Budget still places heavier demands on the private rented sector through higher tax rates on property income, changes to how allowances are applied, and the introduction of a high-value property surcharge. These measures arrive alongside new powers for local authorities to charge overnight visitor levies on holiday lets, while key policy levers such as Local Housing Allowance, Stamp Duty and support for greening homes were left frozen or ignored altogether.

For a sector that now houses around a fifth of UK households, this selective approach is not a technical detail; it is a structural weakness. The private rented sector sits at the heart of the housing system, absorbing the shortfall in social housing, supporting labour mobility, and providing homes for younger workers and families locked out of ownership. When the PRS is squeezed, the effects ripple outward into affordability, supply, homelessness services and local authority budgets. The Budget treats property taxation in isolation, as if changes to landlord incentives have no bearing on wider housing outcomes.

The introduction of separate property-income tax bands from April 2027 is a good example. Increasing the basic, higher and additional rates for property income by two percentage points may appear modest, but for many landlords already affected by Section 24 mortgage interest restrictions, it further erodes the viability of providing rental homes, particularly in high-cost urban areas. The changes to how reliefs and allowances are applied will create additional drag, limiting the extent to which rental profits can be offset. For individual landlords, the cumulative effect is less financial headroom for property standards, maintenance and environmental upgrades—just as government continues to urge improvements in energy performance.

Meanwhile, fundamental pressure points remain untouched. Freezing Local Housing Allowance continues to widen the affordability gap for lower-income renters, driving arrears and placing councils under increasing financial strain as temporary accommodation costs rise. Leaving Stamp Duty unchanged keeps transaction costs high and discourages mobility, which reduces the flow of homes available to rent and limits the ability of people to move for work. Failing to provide any meaningful support for meeting green-homes requirements means the transition to a more sustainable housing stock remains underfunded and incomplete.

All these elements are interconnected. A stable, affordable and environmentally improving PRS cannot be delivered through taxation policy alone, nor can it be treated separately from social housing, planning reform and home-ownership policy. This Budget could have aligned fiscal decisions with housing strategy. Instead, it has focused on raising property-related revenue without addressing the underlying pressures that bind the system together.

If the goal is a functioning and fair housing market, the private rented sector must be recognised as a central pillar of that system. Treating it as an isolated revenue source is not only counterproductive for landlords, it ultimately harms renters, communities and the wider economy.

 James Ginley, Technical Surveying Director at e.surv Chartered Surveyors